Global motion perception deficits in children with amblyopia as a function of spatial and temporal stimulus parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There are conflicting results on whether children with amblyopia have deficits in global motion perception. Differences in the stimulus parameters used in different studies may have led to these discrepancies. Specifically, the speed of a global motion stimulus can be broken down into a ratio of spatial (∆x) and temporal (∆t) displacement parameters. We have shown that coherence thresholds for global motion direction discrimination are immature in 4-6 year olds when smaller ∆x/∆t values are used to create the speed, but adult-like when larger values are used (Meier & Giaschi, 2014). We hypothesize that coherence thresholds in children with amblyopia will be elevated for parameters that take longer to mature, and similar to controls for parameters that mature earlier. Methods: Coherence thresholds were assessed in children with amblyopia (7-16 years, M = 11.21) and age-matched controls using a two-alternative forced choice direction discrimination task. Six combinations of spatial and temporal parameters were used: spatial displacement (∆x) was 1, 5, or 30 arc min; temporal displacement (∆t) was 17 or 50 ms. Children were assessed monocularly, and conducted one run per eye, for a total of 12 measurements. Results: Children with amblyopia had elevated coherence thresholds in the amblyopic eye for ∆x = 1 and 5 arc min, but not ∆x = 30 arc min, at both ∆t = 17 and 50 ms. There was a similar trend in the fellow eye at ∆t = 17 ms, ∆x = 1 arc min. Conclusion: Children with amblyopia show deficits in global motion perception in each eye when they are tested with stimuli that use shorter spatial displacements, regardless of temporal displacement. This is consistent with the hypothesis that aspects of motion perception that take longer to mature are more susceptible to damage by amblyopia. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".